ArticleFrontiers in stroke2024
Financial analysis of a locomotor exercise trial for post-stroke recovery: insights from the HIT Stroke Trial.
Article in Frontiers in stroke, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- High-intensity interval training after stroke: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, feasibility and acceptability.Clinical rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Navigating the complexities of post-stroke recovery trials requires addressing challenges in participant recruitment and retention and effective resource management to ensure trial success. The aim of this study was to examine the financial requirements associated with conducting the Moderate-Intensity Exercise vs. High-Intensity Interval Training to Recover Walking Post-Stroke (HIT Stroke Trial) at a single site encompassing a wide catchment area, recognizing the intricate challenges of participant recruitment and retention inherent in post-stroke recovery trials. Methods: To determine cost, study expense reports were gathered and divided into seven categories: recruitment, screening assessments, baseline assessments, intervention, outcome assessments, retention, and oversight. Categories were then further divided into chronological order for initial contact and prescreening, consenting, initial screening, and baseline testing. The 12-week intervention was divided into 4-week blocks: intervention block 1, post 4-week outcome testing, intervention block 2, post 8-week outcome testing, intervention block 3, and post 12-week outcome testing. Results: Total direct cost for site execution was $539,768 with cost per participant approximated as $35,984. Oversight costs accounted for 65.8% of the budget at $355,661. To achieve goals related to inclusive participant recruitment ($21,923) and retention ($28,009), our site costs totaled $49,932. Direct study-related costs included screening assessments ($5,905), baseline assessments ($15,028), intervention ($76,952), and outcome assessments ($36,288). Discussion: Clinical trials focusing on walking rehabilitation and exercise, particularly those requiring multiple assessment visits, demand rigorous oversight. This cost analysis provides important and critical insight into the expenses required to successfully execute an exercise-based walking rehabilitation trial in the United States.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.